[Bug 2160996] New: Review Request: draco - A library for compressing and decompressing 3D geometric meshes and point clouds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
Bug ID: 2160996 Summary: Review Request: draco - A library for compressing and decompressing 3D geometric meshes and point clouds Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/blender-egl/fedora-r... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/blender-egl/fedora-r... Description: A library for compressing and decompressing 3D geometric meshes and point clouds Fedora Account System Username:luya
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net --- Review sheet: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/blender-egl/fedora-r... Resulting build: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/blender-egl/fedora-r...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |code@musicinmybrain.net
--- Comment #2 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Correction:
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/blender-egl/fedora-r...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
Arthur Bols arthur@bols.dev changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |arthur@bols.dev Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |arthur@bols.dev Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #3 from Arthur Bols arthur@bols.dev --- Hi luya
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues: =======
- missing license file
- missing documentation There seems to be a lot, so a subpackage could be beneficial.
- Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. /usr/share/cmake is owned by this package. Change: %{_datadir}/cmake/ to %{_datadir}/cmake/%{name}/
- missing %check Please check if it is feasible to compile and run the tests
Remarks: ========
- unnecessary %global _hardened_build 1
- %global _disable_ld_no_undefined %nil Does this do anything?
- remove commented `debug_package` and `_legacy_common_support` macros if they're not necessary.
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "MIT License", "*No copyright* The Unlicense". 495 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/arthur/fedora-review/2160996-draco/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/cmake(bash- completion, glm-devel, cmake-filesystem, kim-api-devel, python3-uranium, libmodman-devel, libwbxml-devel, websocketpp-devel) [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in draco- devel [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: draco-1.5.5-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm draco-devel-1.5.5-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm draco-debuginfo-1.5.5-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm draco-debugsource-1.5.5-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm draco-1.5.5-1.fc38.src.rpm ============================================================================================================================ rpmlint session starts =========================================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpeqes01aw')] checks: 31, packages: 5
draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_decoder draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_decoder-1.5.5 draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_encoder draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_encoder-1.5.5 draco.x86_64: W: no-documentation draco-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ============================================================================================= 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.7 s ============================================================================================
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: draco-debuginfo-1.5.5-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm ============================================================================================================================ rpmlint session starts =========================================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpwc4i_3zc')] checks: 31, packages: 1
============================================================================================= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s ============================================================================================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 4
draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_decoder draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_decoder-1.5.5 draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_encoder draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_encoder-1.5.5 draco.x86_64: W: no-documentation draco-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.2 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/google/draco/archive/1.5.5/draco-1.5.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6b7994150bbc513abcdbe22ad778d6b2df10fc8cdc7035e916985b2a209ab826 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6b7994150bbc513abcdbe22ad778d6b2df10fc8cdc7035e916985b2a209ab826
Requires -------- draco (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdraco.so.7()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
draco-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem draco libdraco.so.7()(64bit)
draco-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
draco-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- draco: draco draco(x86-64) libdraco.so.7()(64bit)
draco-devel: cmake(draco) draco-devel draco-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(draco)
draco-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) draco-debuginfo draco-debuginfo(x86-64) libdraco.so.7.0.0-1.5.5-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
draco-debugsource: draco-debugsource draco-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2160996 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Haskell, PHP, Perl, R, Java, SugarActivity, Python, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #4 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- I had started on a review for this, but hadn’t decided if I wanted to take it. I’ll post my findings in addition to Arthur’s official review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #5 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== Issues =====
- The docs/assets/ directory contains precompiled CSS and JavaScript, which could not be packaged as-is:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Web_Assets/#_css
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/JavaScript/#_compi...
This is OK since you are not packaging the HTML documentation, but it would be best if you remove the directory in %prep.
(I think this is more than adequate reason NOT to package the documentation.)
- Similarly, you should remove the following in %prep:
- javascript/ contains precompiled JavaScript - maya/ contains precompiled Windows and MacOS binaries (inside .tar.gz archives)
- Add to %files:
%license LICENSE AUTHORS
- Please remove the following, since it is not used and is therefore confusing:
# draco git %global commit0 4cba1acdd718b700bb33945c0258283689d4eac7 %global shortcommit0 %(c=%{commit0}; echo ${c:0:7}) %global gver git%{shortcommit0}
- It would be good to remove these commented-out lines too:
#%%global debug_package %%{nil} #define _legacy_common_support 1
- This is the default since Fedora 23, so the explicit macro can be removed:
%global _hardened_build 1
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Harden_All_Packages
- What is this, and why is it necessary? If it can’t be removed, can you write a spec file comment justifying why it is needed?
%global _disable_ld_no_undefined %nil
- The -devel package should have a fully versioned dependency on the base package. Instead of
Requires: draco >= %{version}-%{release}
use
Requires: draco%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
- The use of the %{name} macro is inconsistent; this is not against the guidelines, but consider standardizing on either using %{name} or writing out “draco”. Personally, I’ve come to favor less use of trivial macros like this, but this is mostly a subjective question.
- Change
%{_datadir}/cmake/
to
%{_datadir}/cmake/%{name}/
- Please check if this is doing anything useful; I suspect it is not, since Fedora is already setting LTO flags in CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS/LDFLAGS.
-DCMAKE_INTERPROCEDURAL_OPTIMIZATION=ON
- Please remove this, since it is already in the expansion of the %cmake macro (and uses %{_prefix} instead of hard-coded /usr):
-DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr \
- You have this twice; please remove one of them.
-DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr \
- Consider including README.md as %doc.
- Man pages are always desired (but not required):
draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_decoder draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_decoder-1.5.5 draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_encoder draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_encoder-1.5.5
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "MIT License", "*No copyright* The Unlicense". 495 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2160996-draco/licensecheck.txt
Licenses other than Apache-2.0 come from docs/assets/, which will not be packaged.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/cmake(cmake- filesystem, websocketpp-devel, python3-uranium, libmodman-devel, kim- api-devel, libwbxml-devel, glm-devel, bash-completion) [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
Directories in third_party/ are empty.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
Precompiled JavaScript, CSS, and binaries are OK for sources but should be removed in %prep to ensure and demonstrate that they are not included in the binary RPMs.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
-DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr \
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
ExclusiveArch is present
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
(except as noted)
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in draco- devel [?]: Package functions as described.
Can the test suite be executed?
[x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: draco-1.5.5-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm draco-devel-1.5.5-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm draco-debuginfo-1.5.5-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm draco-debugsource-1.5.5-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm draco-1.5.5-1.fc38.src.rpm =========================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts =========================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpv4dbwb1w')] checks: 31, packages: 5
draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_decoder draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_decoder-1.5.5 draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_encoder draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_encoder-1.5.5 draco.x86_64: W: no-documentation draco-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ============================================================================ 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 s ============================================================================
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: draco-debuginfo-1.5.5-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm =========================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts =========================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpuf2qpu3i')] checks: 31, packages: 1
============================================================================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s ============================================================================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 4
draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_decoder draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_decoder-1.5.5 draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_encoder draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_encoder-1.5.5 draco-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation draco.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/google/draco/archive/1.5.5/draco-1.5.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6b7994150bbc513abcdbe22ad778d6b2df10fc8cdc7035e916985b2a209ab826 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6b7994150bbc513abcdbe22ad778d6b2df10fc8cdc7035e916985b2a209ab826
Requires -------- draco (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdraco.so.7()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
draco-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem draco libdraco.so.7()(64bit)
draco-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
draco-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- draco: draco draco(x86-64) libdraco.so.7()(64bit)
draco-devel: cmake(draco) draco-devel draco-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(draco)
draco-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) draco-debuginfo draco-debuginfo(x86-64) libdraco.so.7.0.0-1.5.5-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
draco-debugsource: draco-debugsource draco-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2160996 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Python, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, PHP, Java, R, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #6 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Once this package is imported, one or more bugs will need to be filed blocking the appropriate tracker bugs per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_bui..., similar to bug 1960848.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #7 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Are you sure this package needs to be ExclusiveArch: x86_64?
Upstream documentation (https://github.com/google/draco/blob/master/BUILDING.md) suggests that at least i686 and aarch64 should be supported, and after removing the ExclusiveArch line I was able to do a successful scratch build for all current Fedora primary architectures.
It would be good to get the tests running so that we can be sure everything is really working properly on all of the architectures.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #8 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net --- Thank you for taking the review
- missing license file
Fixed by including LICENSE file
- missing documentation There seems to be a lot, so a subpackage could be beneficial.
As pointed out by Ben, it turned out unnecessary because of precompiled javascripts.
- Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. /usr/share/cmake is owned by this package. Change: %{_datadir}/cmake/ to %{_datadir}/cmake/%{name}/
Fixed.
- missing %check Please check if it is feasible to compile and run the tests
%ctest applied on %check line.
unnecessary %global _hardened_build 1
%global _disable_ld_no_undefined %nil Does this do anything?
remove commented `debug_package` and `_legacy_common_support` macros if
they're not necessary.
All removed.
===== Issues =====
The docs/assets/ directory contains precompiled CSS and JavaScript, which could not be packaged as-is:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Web_Assets/#_css
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/JavaScript/ #_compilationminification
This is OK since you are not packaging the HTML documentation, but it would be best if you remove the directory in %prep.
(I think this is more than adequate reason NOT to package the documentation.)
Done.
Similarly, you should remove the following in %prep:
- javascript/ contains precompiled JavaScript
- maya/ contains precompiled Windows and MacOS binaries (inside .tar.gz archives)
Done by removing both javascript and maya directory.
Add to %files:
%license LICENSE AUTHORS
Fixed
- Please remove the following, since it is not used and is therefore
confusing:
# draco git %global commit0 4cba1acdd718b700bb33945c0258283689d4eac7 %global shortcommit0 %(c=%{commit0}; echo ${c:0:7}) %global gver git%{shortcommit0}
It would be good to remove these commented-out lines too:
#%%global debug_package %%{nil} #define _legacy_common_support 1
This is the default since Fedora 23, so the explicit macro can be removed:
%global _hardened_build 1
%global _disable_ld_no_undefined %nil
Above lines removed.
The -devel package should have a fully versioned dependency on the base package. Instead of
Requires: draco >= %{version}-%{release}
use
Requires: draco%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Fixed.
- The use of the %{name} macro is inconsistent; this is not against the guidelines, but consider standardizing on either using %{name} or writing
out “draco”. Personally, I’ve come to favor less use of trivial macros like this, but this is mostly a subjective question.
An oversight from by part. I chose keeping the %{name} macro for consistency.
Change
%{_datadir}/cmake/
to
%{_datadir}/cmake/%{name}/
Fixed
Please check if this is doing anything useful; I suspect it is not, since Fedora is already setting LTO flags in CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS/LDFLAGS.
-DCMAKE_INTERPROCEDURAL_OPTIMIZATION=ON
It turned out unneeded so that line is removed.
- Please remove this, since it is already in the expansion of the %cmake
macro (and uses %{_prefix} instead of hard-coded /usr):
-DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr \
You have this twice; please remove one of them.
-DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr \
Fixed by removed them.
- Consider including README.md as %doc.
Done
Man pages are always desired (but not required):
draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_decoder draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_decoder-1.5.5 draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_encoder draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_encoder-1.5.5
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages
The linked guideline failed to clarify about the proper use of "help2man" command in the spec file. I commented out these line for the time until a proper solution occurs.
(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #7)
Are you sure this package needs to be ExclusiveArch: x86_64?
Upstream documentation (https://github.com/google/draco/blob/master/BUILDING.md) suggests that at least i686 and aarch64 should be supported, and after removing the ExclusiveArch line I was able to do a successful scratch build for all current Fedora primary architectures.
The build succeeded on all supported architecture as highlighted on
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/luya/blender-egl/build/5235725/ so ExclusiveArch line is removed.
Based on the feedback, here is the update: SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/blender-egl/fedora-r... SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/blender-egl/fedora-r...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #9 from Arthur Bols arthur@bols.dev --- Corrected SRPM url.
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/blender-egl/fedora-r...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #10 from Arthur Bols arthur@bols.dev --- Thanks for the changes!
- I noticed you've added this macro. Does this do anything? The only reference I could find was a closed PR.
%global __cmake_builder ninja
- As Ben pointed earlier, it would be best to remove the docs/assets directory, as it contains precompiled CSS and JavaScript.
(In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #8)
The linked guideline failed to clarify about the proper use of "help2man" command in the spec file. I commented out these line for the time until a proper solution occurs.
You can use it like this:
mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1 help2man -N -o %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}_decoder.1 %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/%{name}_decoder help2man -N -o %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}_encoder.1 %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/%{name}_encoder
*snip*
%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}_decoder.1* %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}_encoder.1*
- missing %check Please check if it is feasible to compile and run the tests
%ctest applied on %check line.
Sadly this doesn't work:
+ /usr/bin/ctest --test-dir redhat-linux-build --output-on-failure --force-new-ctest-process -j8 Internal ctest changing into directory: /builddir/build/BUILD/draco-1.5.5/redhat-linux-build Test project /builddir/build/BUILD/draco-1.5.5/redhat-linux-build No tests were found!!!
You will have to set -DDRACO_TESTS=ON during %build to compile the tests, but this won't work by itself. It tries to find the googletest submodule, which isn't included in the tarball. Maybe this is a trivial fix, so it would be great if you could look into it further!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #11 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net --- (In reply to Arthur Bols from comment #10)
Thanks for the changes!
- I noticed you've added this macro. Does this do anything? The only
reference I could find was a closed PR.
%global __cmake_builder ninja
It looks like that macro does nothing so I removed it.
- As Ben pointed earlier, it would be best to remove the docs/assets directory, as it contains precompiled CSS and JavaScript.
Done.
(In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #8)
The linked guideline failed to clarify about the proper use of "help2man" command in the spec file. I commented out these line for the time until a proper solution occurs.
You can use it like this:
mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1 help2man -N -o %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}_decoder.1%{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/%{name}_decoder help2man -N -o %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}_encoder.1 %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/%{name}_encoder
*snip* %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}_decoder.1* %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}_encoder.1*
I hit an issue with rpmlint with the following result: rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-37-x86_64/result/*.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 5
draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_decoder-1.5.5 draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_encoder-1.5.5 draco-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
How to properely implement the help2man for the case above? I vainly tried
help2man -N -o %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man5/%{name}_decoder.1-%{version} \ --no-discard-stderr %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/%{name}_decoder-%{version} help2man -N -o %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man5/%{name}_encoder.1-%{version} \ --no-discard-stderr %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/%{name}_encoder-%{version}
- missing %check Please check if it is feasible to compile and run the tests
%ctest applied on %check line.
Sadly this doesn't work:
+ /usr/bin/ctest --test-dir redhat-linux-build --output-on-failure--force-new-ctest-process -j8 Internal ctest changing into directory: /builddir/build/BUILD/draco-1.5.5/redhat-linux-build Test project /builddir/build/BUILD/draco-1.5.5/redhat-linux-build No tests were found!!!
Hm, in that condition, running the test is unfeasible in the current state it is temporarily disabled for the time being.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #12 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net --- Here is updated SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/blender-egl/fedora-r... SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/blender-egl/fedora-r...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5239312 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #14 from Arthur Bols arthur@bols.dev --- (In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #11)
How to properely implement the help2man for the case above? I vainly tried
help2man -N -o %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man5/%{name}_decoder.1-%{version} \ --no-discard-stderr %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/%{name}_decoder-%{version} help2man -N -o %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man5/%{name}_encoder.1-%{version} \ --no-discard-stderr %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/%{name}_encoder-%{version}
I can't get rid of the warning message either... If you really want to solve it, you could try asking on the devel list. In my opinion, it doesn't really matter since draco_decoder is just a symlink to draco_decoder-1.5.5, and the man page works fine.
I think this will create the most useful manpages:
mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1 help2man -N --version-string=%{version} -o %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}_decoder-%{version}.1 %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/%{name}_decoder help2man -N --version-string=%{version} -o %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}_encoder-%{version}.1 %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/%{name}_encoder
cd %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1 ln -s %{name}_decoder-%{version}.1 %{name}_decoder.1 ln -s %{name}_encoder-%{version}.1 %{name}_encoder.1
%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}_decoder.1* %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}_encoder.1* %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}_decoder-%{version}.1* %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}_encoder-%{version}.1*
So what I did: - Run help2man against draco_decoder to not include the version number in the command name (I couldn't find a better way to do this). - Add --version-string=%{version} Otherwise the --help output is included twice - Create a symlink from draco_decoder to draco_decoder-%{version} This makes sure `man draco_decoder` and `man draco_decoder-1.5.5` work.
Hm, in that condition, running the test is unfeasible in the current state it is temporarily disabled for the time being.
That's fine.
- I just noticed an inconsistent use of macros: For %files devel you used:
%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so
But for %files:
%{_libdir}/libdraco.so.7 %{_libdir}/libdraco.so.7.0.0
I couldn't find any more issues, so hopefully this is the last iteration! :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #15 from Arthur Bols arthur@bols.dev --- (In reply to Arthur Bols from comment #14)
I think this will create the most useful manpages:
mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1 help2man -N --version-string=%{version} -o%{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}_decoder-%{version}.1 %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/%{name}_decoder help2man -N --version-string=%{version} -o %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}_encoder-%{version}.1 %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/%{name}_encoder
cd %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1 ln -s %{name}_decoder-%{version}.1 %{name}_decoder.1 ln -s %{name}_encoder-%{version}.1 %{name}_encoder.1 %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}_decoder.1* %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}_encoder.1* %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}_decoder-%{version}.1* %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}_encoder-%{version}.1*So what I did:
- Run help2man against draco_decoder to not include the version number in
the command name (I couldn't find a better way to do this).
- Add --version-string=%{version} Otherwise the --help output is included twice
- Create a symlink from draco_decoder to draco_decoder-%{version} This makes sure `man draco_decoder` and `man draco_decoder-1.5.5` work.
That doesn't work, I missed some things. This should be correct:
mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1 LD_LIBRARY_PATH=%{buildroot}%{_libdir} help2man -N --version-string=%{version} -o %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}_decoder-%{version}.1 %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name}_decoder LD_LIBRARY_PATH=%{buildroot}%{_libdir} help2man -N --version-string=%{version} -o %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}_encoder-%{version}.1 %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name}_encoder
%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}_decoder-%{version}.1* %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}_encoder-%{version}.1*
- The symlink for the manpage isn't needed - We need to add `LD_LIBRARY_PATH` to find libdraco.so.7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #16 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- It looks like the introduction of GCC 13 to Rawhide broke this. Looks like a missing #include or “using”.
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=96251494
[32/141] /usr/bin/g++ -DDRACO_CMAKE=1 -DDRACO_FLAGS_SRCDIR="/builddir/build/BUILD/draco-1.5.5" -DDRACO_FLAGS_TMPDIR="/tmp" -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -I/builddir/build/BUILD/draco-1.5.5 -I/builddir/build/BUILD/draco-1.5.5/src -I/builddir/build/BUILD/draco-1.5.5/redhat-linux-build -O2 -flto=auto -ffat-lto-objects -fexceptions -g -grecord-gcc-switches -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-U_FORTIFY_SOURCE,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -fstack-protector-strong -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer -DNDEBUG -fPIC -MD -MT CMakeFiles/draco_io.dir/src/draco/io/file_utils.cc.o -MF CMakeFiles/draco_io.dir/src/draco/io/file_utils.cc.o.d -o CMakeFiles/draco_io.dir/src/draco/io/file_utils.cc.o -c /builddir/build/BUILD/draco-1.5.5/src/draco/io/file_utils.cc FAILED: CMakeFiles/draco_io.dir/src/draco/io/file_utils.cc.o /usr/bin/g++ -DDRACO_CMAKE=1 -DDRACO_FLAGS_SRCDIR="/builddir/build/BUILD/draco-1.5.5" -DDRACO_FLAGS_TMPDIR="/tmp" -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -I/builddir/build/BUILD/draco-1.5.5 -I/builddir/build/BUILD/draco-1.5.5/src -I/builddir/build/BUILD/draco-1.5.5/redhat-linux-build -O2 -flto=auto -ffat-lto-objects -fexceptions -g -grecord-gcc-switches -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-U_FORTIFY_SOURCE,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -fstack-protector-strong -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer -DNDEBUG -fPIC -MD -MT CMakeFiles/draco_io.dir/src/draco/io/file_utils.cc.o -MF CMakeFiles/draco_io.dir/src/draco/io/file_utils.cc.o.d -o CMakeFiles/draco_io.dir/src/draco/io/file_utils.cc.o -c /builddir/build/BUILD/draco-1.5.5/src/draco/io/file_utils.cc In file included from /builddir/build/BUILD/draco-1.5.5/src/draco/io/file_utils.cc:15: /builddir/build/BUILD/draco-1.5.5/src/draco/io/file_utils.h:61:35: error: 'uint8_t' was not declared in this scope 61 | std::vector<uint8_t> *buffer); | ^~~~~~~ /builddir/build/BUILD/draco-1.5.5/src/draco/io/file_utils.h:20:1: note: 'uint8_t' is defined in header '<cstdint>'; did you forget to '#include <cstdint>'? 19 | #include <vector> +++ |+#include <cstdint> 20 | /builddir/build/BUILD/draco-1.5.5/src/draco/io/file_utils.h:61:42: error: template argument 1 is invalid 61 | std::vector<uint8_t> *buffer); | ^ /builddir/build/BUILD/draco-1.5.5/src/draco/io/file_utils.h:61:42: error: template argument 2 is invalid
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #17 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- https://github.com/google/draco/pull/964
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #18 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Created attachment 1938649 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1938649&action=edit Downstream-only patch to use system gtest library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #19 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Created attachment 1938650 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1938650&action=edit Patch to fix GCC 13 and enable tests
Includes the patches from my previous two comments, along with some small changes to the spec file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #20 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net --- Thanks for the suggestions. Here is the updates: SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/blender-egl/fedora-3... SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/blender-egl/fedora-3...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1939112 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1939112&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5239312 to 5251604
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5251604 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #23 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net --- Update SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/blender-egl/fedora-r... SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/blender-egl/fedora-r...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1939320 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1939320&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5251604 to 5260866
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5260866 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #26 from Arthur Bols arthur@bols.dev --- Sorry for the delay, I've been busy studying.
I think you missed my last comment. For generating the man pages, you shouldn't need --no-discard-error. It does only fail because of the missing library, so you'll have to add `LD_LIBRARY_PATH` (see the patch in the next comment). The symlinks are also not necessary, so they may be removed as well. (`man draco_encoder` and `man draco_encoder-1.5.5` both work fine)
Since the tests are now working, you can remove the gtest macro, but you can keep it if you want.
Finally, there is an rpmlint error: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 19, tab: line 2)
I believe everything else looks good!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #27 from Arthur Bols arthur@bols.dev --- Created attachment 1939783 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1939783&action=edit Patch for fixing help2man
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
Arthur Bols arthur@bols.dev changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment|0 |1 #1939783 is| | obsolete| |
--- Comment #28 from Arthur Bols arthur@bols.dev --- Created attachment 1939785 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1939785&action=edit Correct patch for fixing help2man
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #29 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net --- Updated SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/blender-egl/fedora-r... SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/blender-egl/fedora-r...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #30 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1940011 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1940011&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5260866 to 5285652
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #31 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5285652 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
Arthur Bols arthur@bols.dev changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #32 from Arthur Bols arthur@bols.dev --- Looks good!
Package APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #33 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net --- Thank you Arthur!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #34 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/draco
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #35 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-b164ffd66d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-b164ffd66d
--- Comment #36 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-eecebf4f97 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-eecebf4f97
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #35 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-b164ffd66d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-b164ffd66d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #38 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-87cef26f69 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-87cef26f69 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-87cef26f69
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #39 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-eecebf4f97 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-eecebf4f97
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-b164ffd66d has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-b164ffd66d *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-b164ffd66d
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2023-02-05 00:38:11
--- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-eecebf4f97 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #42 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-87cef26f69 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996
--- Comment #43 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-b164ffd66d has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com